I find it funny that the response to a comic that involves a (In my opinion, rather amusing) satire of the respose of certain elements to the mere innocent suggestion that another place may be better than our own has sparked exactly that response on this thread.

In my opinion, the honest criticism of one's country is the single most patriotic act a citizen can preform, particularly in a country like the United States, which is built upon a healthy distrust of any authority. Mr. McCloud's willingness to do this in the face of opposition is a strong credit to him.

All of the independent minds on this thread are rushing over to buy their own "Who are you to tell me to question authority?" bumper sticker from my freedom-loving capitalism-embracing patriot store of...smartass stuff.

Posted: Fri Jan 02, 2004 4:36 pm Post subject: Well not *everyone* was trying to get to the US

Quote:

Personally, I think, while not perfect (who is?), the United States IS the greatest country in the world. Why else is the rest of the world knocking down the door to come here? A lot of people don't appreciate this country for what it is and that is sad.

Well, in the 1920s loads of folks were trying to get off the mess in Europe and Russia, except for those of African decent, which were trying to escape the US for Canada, and *gasp* France. All depends on who's trying to lynch you.

Why else is the rest of the world knocking down the door to come here?

It isn't. The vast majority of the world's population has no interest in the US. Of course a lot of people from poorer nations want to move to more prosperous places, but that is in no way unique to the US. The situation is the same in all first world nations.

But is it true that Americans appreciate their country to such an extent that they dismiss the unique characteristics and contributions of the rest of the world?

Partially, though, last I checked, every country did that to some extent. Part of the reason we're recieving so much hatred from the rest of the world (particuarly the middle east) is the extent that they are rejecting our culture/advances, which have been quite strong outside of our country. This is part of the reason that terrorism crops up against the US; some of the more "politically active" (if you can even categorize such actions in this manner) individuals among a US resenting country may decide that, to preserve their way of life, they need to take some sort of action against the US, even if such an action is flying a plane into a building full of non-combative civillians ("Innocent Civilians" implies that millitary/combative personel are automatically guilty).

Obviously, I do not think that terrorist actions should go without counter-terrorist actions by the US, but, perhaps a good tactic to help prevent terrorism would be to limit US culture outside of our country...though, I honestly am not certain how we would go about that._________________Show me an individual who does not believe comics can hold meaning, and I'll show you someone who never had a childhood.

That's not a bad point, except that unless the individual has been compelled to perform military service (i.e. drafted) he/she is tacitly agreeing to kill other human beings should his/her government so order it, as well as assuming the risk of being killed in the government's service. It's assumed that a soldier will be dealing in death; hence, though a given combatant may be a smashing person, it's not so surprising when they get killed. Civilians make no such agreements to put themselves in harm's way, and in that sense they can be considered "innocent."

It's assumed that a soldier will be dealing in death; hence, though a given combatant may be a smashing person, it's not so surprising when they get killed.

That is not always true; there are many millitary positions that do not directly require combat (I haven't heard of many supply convoy drivers who have been directly involved in combat). On the flip side, "innocent civilians" assumes that said civilians have done nothing wrong and/or have not dealt in combat; who knows what the civillians in question may have done. My point is that using the term "innocent civillians" usually locks the idea in the observers mind that ALL civillians are innocent, and ALL millitary personel are guilty (perhaps, on a deeper level, the observer might automatically associate them with evil). Anyway, I avoid using the term because it seems to create stereotypes._________________Show me an individual who does not believe comics can hold meaning, and I'll show you someone who never had a childhood.

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this, but one of the Crescent of Islam kitties is transparent in this frame._________________--
http://beardedbaby.net
--
"Take heed, dear Friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts, which are the leadings of GOD." - London Yearly Meeting Advices, 1964

After a careful re-reading of this improv, I've determined that there is absolutely no political content in it at all. Turns out, it's just about buckets full of kittens._________________Good morning! That's a nice tnetennba.

Actually, this little kiddie kittie story is perfect, since so many liberals view this complex world the same as an ignorant, simple child would.

Great observation! All propaganda starts by simplifying complex truths into small, black and white, easily digested mini-truths(or half-truths). It makes it much easier to gather the support of ignorant people, who believe anything they read or hear. In simplifying everything, Scott left out that those represented by the kittens in the moon buckets have suffered under incredibly repressive governments that would rape and torture their people on a whim, or not let women learn to read or enjoy equal citizenship.

Of course it goes both ways, both conservatives and liberals have done this for years. The NRA is fairly good at this(I can say that-I'm a member) as is the ACLU and the Million Mom March and list goes on and on.

First, brave words from a person posting as "Anonymous." If you're going to make political statements, you could at least have the respect to stand behind them with at least some sort of username.

Second, you may call it "propaganda," but the exaggeration of certain ideas to their logical extremes as a means of political commentary is a time-honored tradition. We call it "satire" and it's a very respectable form of art. Whether you happen to agree or not.

First, brave words from a person posting as "Anonymous." If you're going to make political statements, you could at least have the respect to stand behind them with at least some sort of username.

This is not the first time this sentiment has been mentioned, so please don't think I'm picking on Connor, but this seems like a good time for a word on anonymous posting:

Since anonymous posting is allowed here specifically to help conversation flow freely, please don't speak ill of those who elect not to register as members. Registration for message forums all over the internet can be a hassle and a pain and not doing so does not automatically equal cowardice. It's supposed to be a feature and a benefit of this forum to allow non-registered readers the ability to post.

On the other hand, since even non-registered posters can identify themselves fairly easily- even using a pseudonym (as do some registered members, effectively making themselves as anonymous as those who do not register)- by typing in a name when they create their posts, it would be considered polite for people to do so in order that people know that one person has made three posts rather than three different people making each post. This is a suggestion to help readers follow the thread of the conversation, but not a requirement.

So far we have a star bucket, a heart bucket, and a moon bucket. What's next, purple horse shoes?

I wonder if Scott McCloud is using the Crescent Moon icon in the same way it was alleged that Johnny Hart did in his controversial BC strip recently? He is certainly too good an artist not to choose his imagery with subtle intent in mind.

Since anonymous posting is allowed here specifically to help conversation flow freely, please don't speak ill of those who elect not to register as members. Registration for message forums all over the internet can be a hassle and a pain and not doing so does not automatically equal cowardice. It's supposed to be a feature and a benefit of this forum to allow non-registered readers the ability to post.

And it's a good feature, and it would be really really hypocritical for me to attack unregistered people for posting, since I posted a number of statments while unregistered. But, thanks to another great feature of this board, I did so under my own name. Unregistered and even anonymous posting is certainly not something I want to stop. I think that people should always be able to post anonymously, and most of the time it's totally fine with me. But I find it hard to take seriously people who won't stand behind a political opinion. But I won't say it again, because I think that this request not to speak ill of people for this reason is fair.